whidbey:sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

sardonicobserver:So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

Because it's difficult to get a message across while living out in the woods? I think Al Gore has the charisma of a log, but what would be gained by him making some pointless gesture?

To put it another way, that's like asking why a billionaire who argues for higher taxes on the rich doesn't just give all their money away. It completely misses the point of their arguement.

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

Because it's difficult to get a message across while living out in the woods? I think Al Gore has the charisma of a log, but what would be gained by him making some pointless gesture?

To put it another way, that's like asking why a billionaire who argues for higher taxes on the rich doesn't just give all their money away. It completely misses the point of their arguement.

oh, see, you misunderstand. this douchebag fark im responding to goes around stalking me on here and responding to any comment i make, regardless of its content, with algore. at first i thought the dumbass was being sarcastic, but now its just farking stupid. i believe it stems from my comments in the cofee thread a few days ago, where i was being silly and commented on celebrities and politicians needing to reduce their footprints to the level of normal us citizens, at least, and making fun of how the article are picking one crop (coffee) and making it a fallguy whilst neglecting the impact o all crops altogether, linking a lecture by a highly respected climate scientist named kevin anderson, mentioning that he is able to lecture without flying.

now he thinks im a republican or some shiat. im guessing he has no idea that im linking respectable people in the field, while hes going on about al gore

I remember being taught , when I was child in school, being taught that America was exceptional, and that we were expected to lead the world by example.Now, we are like ill-bred children."Bobby doesn't have to do it! Why should I? I'll be dead before it matters anyway!"Time to melt the Statue of Liberty down for scrap, and sell the national parks to corporations.It was an interesting experiment - but it's failed.Fortunately, we are a self-solving problem.

cameroncrazy1984:OldJames: cameroncrazy1984: OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

I wonder if this denial started because of Al Gore and the deep-seated and pathological need of republicans to be opposed to virtually anything that comes from democrats, even when it agrees with their interests.

Seriously, I wonder what would have happened if, say, one of the Bushes politically broached the issue? Would they still deny it, or would they gear up their pro-capitalist 'war machine' to push an entire industry dedicated to battling it?

I sometimes feel like we could get a lot more done if we tricked republicans into thinking they had the idea first. Kind of like the stereotype of the wife manipulating the controlling husband into thinking doing the things she wants to do was his idea. It's sad that this is something I can see working.

sardonicobserver:Thorazine: For individuals like yourself, you are contradicting the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research on the subject. So you can believe whatever the hell you want but just remember that you aren't arguing with me, your refuting the body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which is just fine. However, see science works like this, if you contradict data, you need proof of your contradiction.

Just stating what you think or what the TV/Internet told you to think doesn't work. You need data. If you continue to think you are right about this then you fall into one of three categories.

- Intellectually Lazy- Willfully Ignorant- Stupid

Choose one.

How about "no blinders, no tunnel vision"?

NOTE: None of my posts have taken any position such as some have projected in their demonized images of what they perceive as their political opposition.

Cthulhu Theory:I wonder if this denial started because of Al Gore and the deep-seated and pathological need of republicans to be opposed to virtually anything that comes from democrats, even when it agrees with their interests.

Seriously, I wonder what would have happened if, say, one of the Bushes politically broached the issue? Would they still deny it, or would they gear up their pro-capitalist 'war machine' to push an entire industry dedicated to battling it?

I sometimes feel like we could get a lot more done if we tricked republicans into thinking they had the idea first. Kind of like the stereotype of the wife manipulating the controlling husband into thinking doing the things she wants to do was his idea. It's sad that this is something I can see working.

Republicans (conservatives) believe more in conservationDemocrats (liberals) believe more in preservation

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

beverly8:sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

whidbey:sardonicobserver: So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

Ah finally the true colors show.

THIS is an excellent example!!!! ^^^

Yes, it is an excellent example of why we will not be taking you seriously in this thread.

jso2897:I remember being taught , when I was child in school, being taught that America was exceptional, and that we were expected to lead the world by example.Now, we are like ill-bred children."Bobby doesn't have to do it! Why should I? I'll be dead before it matters anyway!"Time to melt the Statue of Liberty down for scrap, and sell the national parks to corporations.It was an interesting experiment - but it's failed.Fortunately, we are a self-solving problem.

You sound like a petulant child who's crying because they're a few points behind in a game and wants to give up rather than work to pull back ahead.

sardonicobserver:beverly8: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

ar393:giantmeteor: long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

Been saving up for something similar myself. Where did you get your solar from? Self install or something professional?

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

Been saving up for something similar myself. Where did you get your solar from? Self install or something professional?

Pro install. not against doing it myself, but didn't have the time. I did do the my roof first myself.14.85 kw system, 45 330 panasonic panels, 2 solaredge 7600 inverters.

and soon....soon, two powerwall 2.0s that my utility is going to pay most of! (The CA rebates are better, but it is what it is since i don't live in CA)

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

You realize you just said you ignore "... the facts", un-ironically, right?

Those who ignore facts should not be taken seriously, and you're practically begging to be dismissed out of hand by stating that. Even if those facts are wrong, you can't ignore them, you must address them.

Until humans can control the sun, we do not control the temperature of the planets atmosphere. Can we control a volcano from erupting or stop an asteroid from striking? What is today's average temperature for the Earth? It is much hotter around the equator than at the poles. Is this a sea level temp or an average altitude? Most of the data points come from high density human population centers, that can wildy skew the results. What is today's temperature in the middle of the Atlantic and the Pacific? Is this global temperature reading an average for the day or at high noon on a sunny day?Tax the largest corporate and government polluters first, not all the little mouth breathers they prey on. Pouring Concrete and asphalt all over the world is not helping. If your climate isn't changing then you might live in San Diego. Belief is for a religion.

flynn80:Until humans can control the sun, we do not control the temperature of the planets atmosphere. Can we control a volcano from erupting or stop an asteroid from striking? What is today's average temperature for the Earth? It is much hotter around the equator than at the poles. Is this a sea level temp or an average altitude? Most of the data points come from high density human population centers, that can wildy skew the results.

Um, Bullshiat?

Tax the largest corporate and government polluters first, not all the little mouth breathers they prey on.

How do you "tax" public services?

Pouring Concrete and asphalt all over the world is not helping. If your climate isn't changing then you might live in San Diego. Belief is for a religion.

factoryconnection:You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

My one old friend who used to be a bit of a denier really hated when I said this to him! Didn't know what to say. I suspect in the last few years, he's changed his mind. We don't get so many deniers around here these days.

Cynicism101:factoryconnection: You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

My one old friend who used to be a bit of a denier really hated when I said this to him! Didn't know what to say. I suspect in the last few years, he's changed his mind. We don't get so many deniers around here these days.

Yeah, just spike the ball, dudes. So satisfying, so quick... instead they're burning clock arguing semantics over whether China is developing or a full-scale polluter. Who gives a f*ck? The exceptional leader of the world says "do nothing."

The Dilbert guy seems like a real tool but I'm with him that economic models are the worst kind of models though the climate models are pretty good. This is discussed in The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which I highly recommend.

HOWEVER! you probably don't need an economic model to tell you that natural disasters and flooding coastlines are expensive to deal with.

The problem with change, climate, society, cultural or whatever is that it either changes on 1) a glacial pace so that people living today would have to sacrifice for change they may never realize but their offspring would2) a sudden drastic correction by an unspeakably horrific act by god or man that hits the reset button. ( extinction event, socitetal collapse from war or disease )

everyone is betting that putting off a) will eventually result in b), after they are gone and also that b) will fix it for everyone left.

Except humanity has mined out the possibilty of recovery from b) now. The world isnt small anymore. All the easy to get low hanging fruit is gone. Changes arent geographically isolated. When it happens. Its going to be a unknown level of correction not known to man.

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

You do realize Al Gore uses green energy, increased efficiency of his properties, and offsets his carbon usage to be carbon neutral right? He even gave a damn TED talk about ways to do so.

beverly8:sardonicobserver: beverly8: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

reduce emissions drastically and now. thats why im so farking cynical about shiat like articles saying omg dont drink coffee, climate change. it has to be on a scale that most people arent going to want to deal with. but this is whats facing china http://news.mit.edu/2018/china-could-f​ace-deadly-heat-waves-due-climate-chan​ge-0731

If the past few decades is any guide, China will not take the economic hit of lowering emissions drastically unless everyone else does it first, no matter what. More mature governments such as that of India are better but not leaders like the US and much of developed Europe. The US is already doing the best we can toward lowering carbon and fluorocarbon emissions and striving to do better.

If you look at the history of China in the last few hundred years, they were emerging with the rest of the world until the colonial interests sought to undermine their coalescing central governments and colonize their coasts (internet searches: "opium wars", "boxer rebellion", "century of humiliation" will get you started). Trade partners walked all over China until Mao's government took hold and then pulled the economy together, which took decades and a pivot to privatization and such. They've been playing the same game now for a few decades but with their history they believe that's the just way of the world.

Cthulhu Theory:sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

You realize you just said you ignore "... the facts", un-ironically, right?

Those who ignore facts should not be taken seriously, and you're practically begging to be dismissed out of hand by stating that. Even if those facts are wrong, you can't ignore them, you must address them.

No one has presented any "facts" to refute any "position". What we have is a few "Resistance" people who see hobgoblins in a post that doesn't reflect their political position. Those who actually read the posts see that I'm not taking any political position whatsoever, nor denying climate change...

Cthulu, I'm taking the time to reply to your post because I don't think anything that I actually posted in this thread is antithetical to anything, and your history seems more constructive than argumentative. If you have the time, please search for my user name in this thread from the beginning and read each post through to the end.

sardonicobserver:Cthulhu Theory: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

You realize you just said you ignore "... the facts", un-ironically, right?

Those who ignore facts should not be taken seriously, and you're practically begging to be dismissed out of hand by stating that. Even if those facts are wrong, you can't ignore them, you must address them.

No one has presented any "facts" to refute any "position". What we have is a few "Resistance" people who see hobgoblins in a post that doesn't reflect their political position. Those who actually read the posts see that I'm not taking any political position whatsoever, nor denying climate change...

Cthulu, I'm taking the time to reply to your post because I don't think anything that I actually posted in this thread is antithetical to anything, and your history seems more constructive than argumentative. If you have the time, please search for my user name in this thread from the beginning and read each post through to the end.

/Where's the beef?

The beef is in the eye of the beholder! Duh. ;)

Also, you don't need me to validate anything. Just stick to providing objective things and addressing the points/facts you take issue with and I'm sure you'll be just fine. Just, whatever you do, don't go around talking about ignoring facts.

sardonicobserver:China will not take the economic hit of lowering emissions drastically unless everyone else does it first, no matter what. More mature governments such as that of India are better but not leaders like the US and much of developed Europe. The US is already doing the best we can toward lowering carbon and fluorocarbon emissions and striving to do better.

winedrinkingman:I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

sardonicobserver:No one has presented any "facts" to refute any "position". What we have is a few "Resistance" people who see hobgoblins in a post that doesn't reflect their political position.

Actually, posters like Zafler and Damnhippyfreak are doing you a courtesy that you, the one who has actual burden of proof, shouldn't be getting. You have the obligation to prove your contentions, not anyone else.

The Dilbert guy seems like a real tool but I'm with him that economic models are the worst kind of models though the climate models are pretty good. This is discussed in The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which I highly recommend.

HOWEVER! you probably don't need an economic model to tell you that natural disasters and flooding coastlines are expensive to deal with.

I posted the Dilbert strip because it represents a thumbnail of lots of pointless arguments. It's a bit sharper to one side than the other, though.

I've heard of The Signal and the Noise. I'm no stranger to modeling, prediction and statistics, so I looked at the book on Amazon. It's inexpensive and has the "Look Inside" feature. The TOC shows that it addresses things on a pretty high level using elementary arguments so it talks to a lot of people, but the introduction and Chapter 1 show the depth to be pretty limited -- other Amazon suggestions from the shopping cart page include "High School Math Made Simple." But it looks like a really excellent monolograph on what modeling and prediction is all about, with examples and curves, sort of like the book Augustine's Laws which is one of my favorites. So, I'm getting a copy and will read it. If it pans out, I'll offer it up to others when it seems constructive to do so.

Regarding sea level rise and flooding, yes, it is happening and it's real, and it seems obvious that the warming trend is a causative element there. Global temperature averages were 10 F lower during the height of the last Ice Age when glaciers reached the tropics, the sea level was tens of feet lower than it is today, and early Mongols walked from Siberia to Alaska on dry ground. But the "hockey stick" turned out to be an artifact of data manipulation and the selection of models and their results. Al Gore's famous slide show that was the basis of An Inconvenient Truth, once he was done saying "I used to be the next President of the United States" at the start of the movie, predicted that the "hockey stick" curve would continue and temperatures would run away, and that the sea levels would rise something like 30 feet by... 2020??? The fact that global temperatures declined slightly for a decade after 2000 didn't help his case, and ClimateGate exposed the bogus use of models in generating the hockey stick, most notably by Michael E. Mann, the author of the paper that defined the hockey stick to the climate science community. It appears that grant money or some similar influence(s) corrupted the climate science community beyond all credibility, disabling the capability of the climate science community to affect national policy. If there is anything we can do that would help, we need a credible basis to support huge, expensive decisions, but, there hasn't been one since then, so we don't know, and nobody will do anything really expensive. For that, you can blame the corruption of the climate science community.